Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the corrections; I shall now slouch into silence because I
honestly have very little opinion.

On 15 May 2014 13:06, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dave Cridland scripsit:
>
> > Of course, an invalid-UTF-8 based proposal simply means that it's no
> > longer UTF-8 per-se, and so needs itself to be tagged differently.
>
> The whole point of the invalid-UTF-8 was that the less fussy decoders of
> the day would quietly drop the hidden information and display the string.
> That is much less likely to happen now.
>
> > Exactly the same caveats apply to Plane 14 tagging, mind,
>
> Not so much.  Unicode renderers that don't understand language tags will
> not display them (because stuff on plane E is never displayed per its
> Unicode properties), or if the renderer doesn't even understand that,
> will at worst generate boxes or other "character unknown" glyphs,
> often only three of them.
>
> > The main consideration, I think, is what happens when a CBOR processor
> > encounters a language-tagged string when it doesn't understand the
> concept.
>
> Agreed, and if that is a serious problem, Plane E starts to look better.
>
>